Why do people ultimatively go to hell?

[Pastor Larry]

I am going to start a thread on the issue you and Bobby Ryan raise concerning the notion that all have heard the gospel.

I don’t know about Bob, but I don’t think all have heard the gospel. I never said that. Perhaps part of the problem is that you read Scripture like you read my posts … not very carefully and with preconceived notions.

The Scripture declares that all men know about God and all men have rejected him. They are without excuse. That is different than all men hearing the gospel.

I will say now that the imputation of Christ’s righteous or the imputation of Adam’s sins ‘as you suggest they are to be understood’ is not taught in Scripture. Those are assumed doctrines founded upon the false Augustinian/Calvinistic system of thought that believes in constitutional depravity known as the doctrine of original sin.

Not much to say here except that you are incorrect. The Bible clearly teaches imputation in many passages. And to deny original sin is heresy. The whole of salvation is based on the doctrine of original sin. If not for original sin and Adamic guilt, then salvation could come by another means (perfection) and Christ died needlessly. That would be in direct contradiction to Gal 2.

For instance, Ignorance or inability is no excuse necessarily under civil law (outside of criminal law) but ignorance and inability do in fact affect moral law.

No, they don’t. As is well known even in our imperfect jurisprudence system, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Your distinction between civil law and moral law is weak, at best. Moral law has a higher claim than civil law, and the standards are higher. In civil law, a judge may accept ignorance or mitigating circumstances. God’s law knows no such exceptions.

In order to arrive at your conclusion, you have to have a presupposition in place, that if God foreknows it will come to pass that proves that necessity as opposed to freedom was at stake. That I do not believe is a trustworthy presupposition. We have had many discussion on this list in the past on foreknowledge, but I will just say this. Our foreknowledge is limited to things of necessity, but God’s is not. He has the ability we ourselves as humans do nor possess, in that He can foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as matters of necessity, thereby knowing what is to come to pass without necessitating it.

Assume that is true (it isn’t, but let’s assume it anyway). Judas still had no chance to change his mind to do anything differently. His life was set in stone before he ever came into existence.

When you say that Judas had no choice because God foreknew his actions, you are limiting an Infinite God to a foreknowledge like as we possess as humans. Remember? God’s ways are higher than our ways, and possesses abilities far beyond those we possess.

Which is why you should not be trying to force your own intellect on God’s revelation. You are insisting that God fit into a box of foreknowledge that you can understand and agree with. You should simply take his word for it.

If Judas had a legitimate choice in your terminology, then God’s knowledge may have been wrong. That is completely heretical. God’s knowledge is perfect, even if not causative. This is so simple that you are overlooking the implications of it for your position.

 

[webdog]

Pastor Larry: I don’t know about Bob, but I don’t think all have heard the gospel. I never said that. Perhaps part of the problem is that you read Scripture like you read my posts … not very carefully and with preconceived notions.

Pastor Larry from page 4: All men have heard. Rom 1:19-21 make it clear that all men know so that they are without excuse.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Yes, Webdog. Did you read my comment and the verse in question? The "gospel" was not in my statement, nor in the verse I cited. All men have heard refers to the existence and supremacy of God, as the verse cited makes clear.

Please be careful to understand what I say.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

PL: Please be careful to understand what I say.

HP: We all need to be careful to try and understand those we are discussing with, but there is also an obligation on all of our parts to write in such a way that we are not easily misunderstood.

I thought we were discussing the question 'directly concerning salvation.' When you said that all had heard, why should I have not understood that you were referring to salvation?

Oh well, I understand you now.

 

[Andrew Walling]

Pray one for another that we might use our time wisely and be found at the Master's business when He comes for us again! Pray that in everything we do and discuss that the love of God and love one to another might be evident in ALL our discussions, and that we may live up to our understanding in our daily walk before God, our families, and the world around us!

Amen! :thumbsup:

May I suggest that rather than get distracted by philosophical or emotional discussion concerning man's desire, intent, choice, will, nature, and related issues concerning man and his ability/inabilty that we search out the scriptures for what God wisdom says concerning man's desire, intent, choice, will, nature, etc. It is so easy to get side tracked and not check are traditions against scripture. :flower:

 

[El_Guero]

XD?

Are you there?

Where is there?

I gotta find you a discipler so that that you might be able to live up to that name you chose . . .

They go to hell because they thought they were Christians and they were not.

Any good discipleship would resolve their lack of a genuine salvation experience and fix that issue . . .

Discipleship?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andrew Walling: May I suggest that rather than get distracted by philosophical or emotional discussion concerning man's desire, intent, choice, will, nature, and related issues concerning man and his ability/inabilty that we search out the scriptures for what God wisdom says concerning man's desire, intent, choice, will, nature, etc. It is so easy to get side tracked and not check are traditions against scripture.

HP: I sense a real spirit of love for the truth and the brethren here, sincerely desiring to give some admonition you obviously feel is needed. I respect that from you, and I never take such admonitions lightly. May God indeed direct, yes even the direction of our discussions. May I be attentive and obedient to His will.

 

[Southern]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

Hey partner :wavey: . You stated to Andrew W. the following:

HP: You admit that what you first claimed is not in this passage and are right in doing so. Show us where it is even implied or alluded to that the sin of Adam and or his guilt is imputed to us.

I had a question in regards to your comment, to better understand what you are attempting to argue.

Do you believe that we are "made righteous" (Rom. 5:19) by imputation of Christ's righteousness?
Also, in your view, in what way does Adam cause our condemnation? (Please provide the particular scripture from the context where you believe this connection exists.)

This is not a "trick" question. I understand Paul to teach that we are made sinners "just as" we are made righteous (which I take to be by imputation):

19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (NIV)

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Hello Southern, You ask some very excellent questions. I also appreciate the way you asked them. If you are willing to spend some time in discussion we can reach the bottom of your questions.

I am pressed for time this morning so I will wait to respond this evening. I want to carefully consider your request and go about answering it in a way that speaks to the heart of truth in the most understandable manner. Have a great day and I will see you tonight the Lord willing.

 

[Southern]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

Let me thank you ahead of time for your time in responding.

I am afraid that I cannot offer you long and drawn out discussions "getting to the bottom" of any issue. However, I am interested in seeing your understanding of this verse in light of the questions above.

May God bless us both as we seek understanding from His word.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Southern: Do you believe that we are "made righteous" (Rom. 5:19) by imputation of Christ's righteousness?

HP: That of course depends on how one views imputation.

Christ’s righteousness is indeed imputed to us on behalf of sins that are past when we fulfill the conditions he has mandated, but I do not believe His righteousness covers for future sins apart from confessing and repenting for such sins, fulfilling the conditions for forgiveness and imputation of His righteousness on their behalf.

Southern: Also, in your view, in what way does Adam cause our condemnation? (Please provide the particular scripture from the context where you believe this connection exists.)

HP: First, there is no Scripture that states that Adam has caused our sins or caused our condemnation. The burden of proof lies on you, not I to produce such a passage. If it is your opinion that the verse in Romans 5 you quoted does, I will address it directly.

Southern: This is not a "trick" question. I understand Paul to teach that we are made sinners "just as" we are made righteous (which I take to be by imputation):

HP: I believe that is a false notion on both accounts. First, imputation of righteousness in salvation is accomplished only as we fulfill the conditions of repentance and faith. Man’s will must be active in obedience to the command to repent antecedent to any imputation of righteousness. Bear in mind that the part man’s will plays is NOT the grounds of salvation, i.e. thought of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’, but rather man’s obedience in repentance is thought of in the sense of ‘not without which.’ Let me illustrate.

A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just, and attitudes are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on their account. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’ It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’ in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’) of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Let me stop here for now and see how we are doing so far. Do you see a distinction between grounds and conditions?

 

[Southern]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

Thank you for your time and effort to answer my questions.

You stated:

HP: That of course depends on how one views imputation.

Christ’s righteousness is indeed imputed to us on behalf of sins that are past when we fulfill the conditions he has mandated, but I do not believe His righteousness covers for future sins apart from confessing and repenting for such sins, fulfilling the conditions for forgiveness and imputation of His righteousness on their behalf.

I think you and I would probably disagree on the certainty (or lack thereof) of God's people fulfilling those conditions. However, I am hoping that it is possible for us to atleast discuss Romans 5 without immediately chasing that rabbit.

In your view, does Romans 5 teach that we are made sinner's “just as” we are made righteous? This is my understanding of verse 19:
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (NIV)

HP: First, there is no Scripture that states that Adam has caused our sins or caused our condemnation. The burden of proof lies on you, not I to produce such a passage. If it is your opinion that the verse in Romans 5 you quoted does, I will address it directly.

You mentione that there is no scripture that teaches that Adam causes our sins or condemnation. However, that is exactly what I believe Paul to be saying in verse 19:
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (NIV)
Paul seems to draw a connection between Adams sin and our being made sinners. From the context what type of connection exists that allows Paul to say that we are made sinners by Adam? Or do you deny there is a connection? Thanks for any clarification on this point.

HP: I believe that is a false notion on both accounts. First, imputation of righteousness in salvation is accomplished only as we fulfill the conditions of repentance and faith.

I believe that we recieve Christ's righteousness "through" faith. I may disagree on some secondary points, but I do not disagree with you here.

I will read and attempt to think through your line of reasoning (to the best of my ability!) in any response that you give. And will interact if and when able to. :thumbs:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Southern: In your view, does Romans 5 teach that we are made sinner's “just as” we are made righteous? This is my understanding of verse 19:
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (NIV)

HP: If we were to believe that Adam of necessity makes ‘all men sinners’, then we would have to assume (by the parallel given) that of necessity all are made righteous. (Now I am not pinning this or any set presentation of this verse upon you. We are just discussing. ) That leaves us to read the verse simply as many were made sinners, not all, and many are made righteous not all. This verse cannot be made to indicate imputed sin upon all. i.e as original sin would imply.

It would appear to me that the best case that can be made would be that the words ‘by one man's disobedience many were made sinners’ simply imply that by Adam’s example he passed onto his posterity a formidable influence to evil. In the case of the words “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” simply implies that by the sacrificial death of Christ the plan has been made and executed that will place into effect the influences and atonement needed to secure those that will receive the offer proffered. Care needs to be utilized not to read into the word ‘made’ force or coercion. There is nothing in the text that would force the word made to carry that connotation, and much in the text that would indicate force is not the meaning of the term used.


Quote:
HP: First, there is no Scripture that states that Adam has caused our sins or caused our condemnation. The burden of proof lies on you, not I to produce such a passage. If it is your opinion that the verse in Romans 5 you quoted does, I will address it directly.

Southern: You mentioned that there is no scripture that teaches that Adam causes our sins or condemnation. However, that is exactly what I believe Paul to be saying in verse 19:
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (NIV)

HP: Again, you use the word ‘caused.’ That word is often used tto indicate a strong influence, not force or coercion. In dealing with morals, where God blames or punishes man, such moral intents cannot be coerced or forced without eliminating personal responsibility and all morality predicated of the intents in question.

Southern: Paul seems to draw a connection between Adams sin and our being made sinners. From the context what type of connection exists that allows Paul to say that we are made sinners by Adam? Or do you deny there is a connection? Thanks for any clarification on this point.

HP: I hope I have made it clear. If you have any further questions just ask.

 

[Southern]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

I do see your response and will surely share any relevant disagreements or even agreements with your answers hopefully in the next day or two.

Again, thank you.

 

[BobRyan]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=866996&postcount=28

Looks like people go to hell for the debt of sin that they owe.

 

[Jarthur001]

If God demands obedience...and doesn't give the ability to obey...that is not justice. ARe you trying to tell me that man can be more just than God?

Does anyone have the abilty to obey theses verses?


Matthew 5:48,
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"

Corinthians 15:34,
"Awake to righteousness and sin not"

1 John 2:1,
"My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not"


Is this just?

 

[Southern]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

You stated:

HP: If we were to believe that Adam of necessity makes ‘all men sinners’, then we would have to assume (by the parallel given) that of necessity all are made righteous. (Now I am not pinning this or any set presentation of this verse upon you. We are just discussing. ) That leaves us to read the verse simply as many were made sinners, not all, and many are made righteous not all. This verse cannot be made to indicate imputed sin upon all. i.e as original sin would imply.

You state that if we take the “all” of Rom. 5:19 in an all inclusive way, then we of necessity have to take the other “all” as all inclusive which would result in Universalism (which I trust we both deny). However, the only way to get that interpretation is to deny that we are talking about the first and second Adam.

Romans 5 is comparing the work of Adam and its effects on “all” (in him) with the work of Christ on “all” (in him). (see also 1 Cor. 15:22,23)

Heavenly Pilgrim stated:

It would appear to me that the best case that can be made would be that the words ‘by one man's disobedience many were made sinners’ simply imply that by Adam’s example he passed onto his posterity a formidable influence to evil. In the case of the words “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” simply implies that by the sacrificial death of Christ the plan has been made and executed that will place into effect the influences and atonement needed to secure those that will receive the offer proffered. Care needs to be utilized not to read into the word ‘made’ force or coercion. There is nothing in the text that would force the word made to carry that connotation, and much in the text that would indicate force is not the meaning of the term used.

You seem to be saying that the only connection that Adam has in “making” us sinners is by example. Could you please clarify on this point. For example, when you mention “influence”, exactly how are we influenced specifically by Adam (vs. 19)?

I am trying to understand how Adam merely setting an example (if that is indeed your position) can compare to Paul saying that we were made sinners through Adam:

19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. (NIV)

Finally, It seems that we agree (in a sense) that we are made righteous by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. However, given Paul’s comparison in verse 19 above, it seems that Paul is saying that we are “made righteous” (which you seem to acknowledge is by imputation) in the same way that we are “made sinners” (which would have to be by imputation for the parallel to hold). But again, only you can present your position.

May God bless us both

 

[Southern]

Does anyone have the abilty to obey theses verses?


Matthew 5:48,
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"

Corinthians 15:34,
"Awake to righteousness and sin not"

1 John 2:1,
"My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not"


Is this just?

Jarthur,

I don't think you'll find "ought implies can" in the scriptures. However, you may find that in the book of 1 or 2nd Pelagius. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JArthur: Does anyone have the abilty to obey theses verses?


Matthew 5:48,
"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"

Corinthians 15:34,
"Awake to righteousness and sin not"

1 John 2:1,
"My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not"


Is this just?

HP: Did Christ have the abilities necessary to obey these commandments?

Paul stated, “Ga 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”

Did Paul have the abilities you ask about? Why wouldn’t it be just to require out of man no more than what God promises to supply all the needed strength to perform?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Southern: I don't think you'll find "ought implies can" in the scriptures. However, you may find that in the book of 1 or 2nd Pelagius.

HP: “I CAN do ALL things through Christ which strengthens me.” As I recall, that is in Scriptures, although it might well be quoted in the books you mention. I just have not read 1 or 2 Pelagius.

PS: I will try and get to your last post tomorrow. Have a great day in the Lord!